PT-2024-LIV-000019 - [2025] EWHC 816 (Ch)

Veronica (or Vera) Clarke died on 11 August 2022, and probate of her last will dated 20 October 2014 was on 30 March 2023 granted to the Claimant, Henry Tedford, her nephew, with power reserved to another executor, her brother William Morris, the Sixth Defendant. The will presents numerous difficulties of construction with which this Part 8 claim and this judgment are concerned. Separate proceedings, which have however been case- managed with these, have been brought by William Morris and his sister Leila English (the Fifth Defendant in these proceedings) against Henry Tedford for his removal as executor and the substitution of William Morris and related relief. I am not presently concerned with those proceedings.

Witness statements of Henry Tedford, Peter Hindley (the Fifteenth Defendant), Yvonne Hindley (the Sixteenth Defendant) Patricia Owen (the Seventh Defendant), William Morris and Leila English were filed in these proceedings. Without objection, and with my permission, reliance was also placed upon witness statements of William Morris and Leila English both dated 11 February 2024 and filed in the other proceedings. There was no application for cross examination of any witness, and I did not consider it appropriate to make an order for cross examination of my own motion. The question whether and for what purposes any of this evidence was admissible is considered in the course of this judgment.

As well as being the executor of the will, Henry Tedford is, under some potential constructions of it, a potential beneficiary. Given that genuine difficulties arise from the terms of the will, and that the constructions under which he would be a beneficiary potentially arise from those genuine difficulties, I should make it clear at the outset that I regard these proceedings as having been properly brought by him as an executor to resolve those difficulties, since they could not be resolved by agreement.He would beunable as executor safely to distribute the estate without the protection of a court order.  That he also has a personal interest in the outcome as a potential beneficiary does not detract from that. Counsel instructed on his behalf was careful not to press for any particular construction of the will, and to the extent that he identified a positive case as to its construction at the hearing before me, that was because I required him to do so. His evidence given as executor was neutral, and kept separate from his evidence given in a personal capacity. That was a proper approach.

Only Leila English and William Morris took an active part in these proceedings, and they too were represented by counsel, with the helpful effect that differing constructions could be considered in the course of genuine argument. Unfortunately, the family has fallen out over the construction of the will and the administration of the estate, and that is reflected in some of the evidence.

None of the other Defendants were represented before me, although it is apparent from their witness statements that the Seventh, Fifteenth and Sixteenth Defendants were supportive of the Claimant’s case.